I question everything including life. While studying upon the Catholic Church for more information so I may post upon the group of women who want to be ordained priests, I found a mystery. Perhaps its not meant to be solved, but in any case, it is a fascinating mystery. I will probably continue studying about it on my free time. What is it? The Incorruptibles. Haven't heard of it before now? Well, I had not heard about it until I began searching for certain truths.
The Incorruptibles are Catholic Saints whose bodies do not deteriorate without any evidence of mummification. To not repeat everything that is posted on the other web pages I give it to you here. If you want to read a book about it you can order it through the Catholic Company. Now my next question, is there any other religion that has an Incorruptible? Would like to know, but have not found any as of yet.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Problems with Minimum Wage
Are we to believe that raising the minimum wage will help the low middle class? The Supreme Court had once found the minimum wage unconstitutional. You can find more information about minimum wage on Wikipedia. Throughout history the minimum wage has been used to reduce the amount of labour. I can not recite the history of the minimum wage but once again I turn to economic blogs to help provide an explanation. Cafe Hayek's response, Marginal Revolution's response, and I'll let you read through one of my favorite economic blogs the Austrian Economists to understand why society does not accept the idea that the minimum wage is bad.
Friday, July 28, 2006
No such thing as Non Fiction
The Weekend Without Echoes was a huge success. I became silent throughout the period as I spent more time reading blogs and did not want to ruin the intents of the weekend by posting a blog on a subject that was written about so many of times before. A week had passed before I decided it was time to post a new post.
Reading through so many blogs this past weekend I encountered in interesting phenomena. Bloggers can comment on the same material but present it in different views. The latest news from the crisis in the Middle East has created the same oppositional views throughout the media. Media in the United States try to not show an images too grotesque while media from overseas are graphic beckoning for peace and tranquility while showing what horrors the conflict cause. The doors to debate arise and different opinions arise. This is a natural course, but the phenomena is not the opposing views. The phenomena I had noticed is that nonfiction is nonexistant. In order for a book, article, or blog to be labeled nonfiction it must be factual without any input of fiction. As writers, we each create opinions upon our writings with or without our own knowledge of the action.
What is fiction? Dictionary.com says it is A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
What is nonfiction? Dictionary.com says it is prose writing that is not fictional.
An author upon a historical icon may include only the data in which he enjoys; therefore not fulfilling his duties for the readers and including all the data that would allow the reader to form his own opinion upon the historical icon. Of course readers have the same faults as readers have their own opinions and shift through any data that may be presented in front of them but only read through the material that they believe to side with their opinion.
We can see this in any material. Graphs that display the Nation's economic progress may be different between two oppossing economists who use the same material. We can see this evidence in any newspaper or news channel as they may try to report facts, but in fact, display only their opinions upon any topic.
Is there any way to end this nonexistence of nonfiction? Of course not. Nonfiction is only fact filled fiction. A book on capitalism or socialism will always be a case of fiction. When reading Mises' The AntiCapitalistic Mentality, you receive the notion that there is nothing better than capitalism, really there isn't, but if you should read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx you receive a different set of values upon Capitalism. There is no such thing as nonfiction; only a job for each reader to read through the fiction to find the facts.
Reading through so many blogs this past weekend I encountered in interesting phenomena. Bloggers can comment on the same material but present it in different views. The latest news from the crisis in the Middle East has created the same oppositional views throughout the media. Media in the United States try to not show an images too grotesque while media from overseas are graphic beckoning for peace and tranquility while showing what horrors the conflict cause. The doors to debate arise and different opinions arise. This is a natural course, but the phenomena is not the opposing views. The phenomena I had noticed is that nonfiction is nonexistant. In order for a book, article, or blog to be labeled nonfiction it must be factual without any input of fiction. As writers, we each create opinions upon our writings with or without our own knowledge of the action.
What is fiction? Dictionary.com says it is A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
What is nonfiction? Dictionary.com says it is prose writing that is not fictional.
An author upon a historical icon may include only the data in which he enjoys; therefore not fulfilling his duties for the readers and including all the data that would allow the reader to form his own opinion upon the historical icon. Of course readers have the same faults as readers have their own opinions and shift through any data that may be presented in front of them but only read through the material that they believe to side with their opinion.
We can see this in any material. Graphs that display the Nation's economic progress may be different between two oppossing economists who use the same material. We can see this evidence in any newspaper or news channel as they may try to report facts, but in fact, display only their opinions upon any topic.
Is there any way to end this nonexistence of nonfiction? Of course not. Nonfiction is only fact filled fiction. A book on capitalism or socialism will always be a case of fiction. When reading Mises' The AntiCapitalistic Mentality, you receive the notion that there is nothing better than capitalism, really there isn't, but if you should read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx you receive a different set of values upon Capitalism. There is no such thing as nonfiction; only a job for each reader to read through the fiction to find the facts.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Net Neutrality on the Daily Show
Net Neutrality, I haven't posted anything on this subject as I believed there is plenty of information on the web explaining it, but I did think I should at least address the issue a little by linking to a few sites that may help define it better. On the top of my side notes is a link to a website in defense of the web. It is a great site that explains the importance of Net Neutrality and includes a link which provides information on contacting the Senator of your state along with a table that counts how many Senators are for or against Net Neutrality.
I also have linked the Washington Post article I believe to best describe Net Neutrality, but I think the kicker will be the Daily Show video I have finally been able to embed from YouTube.com. The team at Monstrosity are going to love me for this. For those who do know know of Monstrosity, they are a political blog filled with humor, but mostly post on Virginia politics, although they have begun to post on a variety of topics including economics. Of course, they are huge fans of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, therefore explaining why they will love me for this. Well here is the video.
I also have linked the Washington Post article I believe to best describe Net Neutrality, but I think the kicker will be the Daily Show video I have finally been able to embed from YouTube.com. The team at Monstrosity are going to love me for this. For those who do know know of Monstrosity, they are a political blog filled with humor, but mostly post on Virginia politics, although they have begun to post on a variety of topics including economics. Of course, they are huge fans of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, therefore explaining why they will love me for this. Well here is the video.
Immigration enters the world of Singing Comedians
Stephen Lynch, a singing comedian, has a song called SuperHero wherein he describes many different types of superheros including one that expresses his views on Immigration. The rest is just for your enjoyment...
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Bribery
I had began to write a post describing bribery when I had found a blog that had already posted the information. As this post would have been a long descriptive post, I link you to the Poverty and Growth Blog which is part of the World Bank Insititute; it is a long post that enters the horrors of bribery.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
The cost of Immigration... Bribery
In my post on the cost of halting Immigration I did not address bribery into the cost, but seeing as others have begun blogging upon the issue, I thought I might link to at least one of them. The Westerner does not break down the problems of halting immigration, but does a great job in briefing on the information. The article on the Washington Post for bribery can be found here.
Shortly I'll post on bribery and how it affects the cost.
Shortly I'll post on bribery and how it affects the cost.
Cafe Hayek does it again
I just thought it was interesting to find this blog post on Cafe Hayek. I did not read the article on the Washington Post, but enjoyed this post and had to share it. Read the comments; it gets interesting, especially as a student quotes one of their professors. Makes you wonder what students are being taught...
Saturday, July 15, 2006
The Cost in Halting Immigration
It has been expressed throughout the news, the different views between the politicians upon immigration. Some call for a wall to be built on the border. Others call for an increase in border patrol. Both of these policies would need a substantial amount of tax payers' dollars to pay for each, either to pay for the border patrol's wages or the fixed cost in the wall. This cost does not necessarily end illegal immigration, but perhaps slow it down until a new path is found. For instance, the talks of a wall on the border is only towards the Mexican border. The Canadian border remains open. The border wall in Mexico increases the cost to enter through the Mexican border, but it will also increase the amount of immigrants that enter through the Canadian border. What's next after one border is controlled? Do we have to control the other border?
To deter the amount of illegal immigrants, the United States will spend millions of tax payer dollars on the wall and border patrol. But is this not the same reason why we want to have less of them, as to decrease the amount of tax payer dollars used for them. We are trading the costs, but who is to say it is benefiting us? Illegal immigrants begin to decline but the costs remain. Government spending is hardly changed because of the beauracracy, therefore there is no trade, only a new spending program that eats up taxpayer dollars. The complaints are that immigrants cut wages and abuse the welfare system. Want to read more about the complaints...
Let us not be confused. In trying to deter immigration, we are only increasing our own costs. Most grow upset when taxes are increased, but when the citizens cry out for justice and increase the power of government, there is no option but to increase taxes. Have your opinion, don't hire illegal immigrants, but by getting the government involved we are only allowing them to enter our lives a little more each day.
To deter the amount of illegal immigrants, the United States will spend millions of tax payer dollars on the wall and border patrol. But is this not the same reason why we want to have less of them, as to decrease the amount of tax payer dollars used for them. We are trading the costs, but who is to say it is benefiting us? Illegal immigrants begin to decline but the costs remain. Government spending is hardly changed because of the beauracracy, therefore there is no trade, only a new spending program that eats up taxpayer dollars. The complaints are that immigrants cut wages and abuse the welfare system. Want to read more about the complaints...
Let us not be confused. In trying to deter immigration, we are only increasing our own costs. Most grow upset when taxes are increased, but when the citizens cry out for justice and increase the power of government, there is no option but to increase taxes. Have your opinion, don't hire illegal immigrants, but by getting the government involved we are only allowing them to enter our lives a little more each day.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Attack on the Illegal Immigrants
It has been a controversy discussed heavily throughout all types of media. Immigration causes an angry reply from certain individuals and others raise their voice to defend it. I thought my posts on immigration had ended but it seems that it will become my next set of posts. Perhaps not as interesting as romance, but it is important.
This nation was founded by immigrants. This nation has had a great amount of success because of immigrants, and immigrants immigrated because they believe living in the United States is better than living at their mother country. The history of the nation's immigration acts is peculiar. The government denies entry to certain types throughout the ages, as the Irish, Japanese, and many Eastern European countries. It seems whatever the majority of the population is, they begin to point fingers towards immigrants of another location causing the government to create the immigration acts that limit the amount of immigrants.
The United States at one time accepted entry from any country in the Americas, but as time passed and the rise of the hispanic population grew, the immigration acts turned towards the neighboring countries limiting the amount of immigrants. The neighboring countries do not follow the United States laws allowing immigrants to pass through their countries in order to enter the United States. Most immigrants from the Americas saw a higher gain in entering the United States illegally than staying in their home country; they crossed through many borders and work in the lowest jobs to allow themselves a chance to stay in the United States and earn a good living which they may keep for themselves or send back to their families in their patron countries.
People cry out that the illegal immigrants cause the grafitee and the violence, but just as before with the Irish, Japanese, and other races, the hispanics form gangs in order to protect themselves from injustice. The gang violence is created by our own haste from attacking the immigrants who only wish to earn a living. The rise of gangs occurred during prosecution. The Italian mob grew when the Italians could only turn to each other for assistance. Movies depicted this harsh past in our nation's history. Think Godfather or Gangs of New York.
I felt the need to write this post as a warning. Let us not copy the attacks on immigration as done in a city in Pennsylvania. Instead of decreasing the violence, crime, we may be increasing it, causing a streak of terror which gives birth to the gangs and mobs. To protect the cities we must accept that immigrants have every right to live in the United States. They only increase the trade ratio allowing for increase production and labor. If we need proof, then let us wait; the test subject has already been drawn in Hazleto, Pa. There we shall see if the streets do become safer, or if the rise of a new violent spree arises to maintain the safety of the illegal immigrants.
This nation was founded by immigrants. This nation has had a great amount of success because of immigrants, and immigrants immigrated because they believe living in the United States is better than living at their mother country. The history of the nation's immigration acts is peculiar. The government denies entry to certain types throughout the ages, as the Irish, Japanese, and many Eastern European countries. It seems whatever the majority of the population is, they begin to point fingers towards immigrants of another location causing the government to create the immigration acts that limit the amount of immigrants.
The United States at one time accepted entry from any country in the Americas, but as time passed and the rise of the hispanic population grew, the immigration acts turned towards the neighboring countries limiting the amount of immigrants. The neighboring countries do not follow the United States laws allowing immigrants to pass through their countries in order to enter the United States. Most immigrants from the Americas saw a higher gain in entering the United States illegally than staying in their home country; they crossed through many borders and work in the lowest jobs to allow themselves a chance to stay in the United States and earn a good living which they may keep for themselves or send back to their families in their patron countries.
People cry out that the illegal immigrants cause the grafitee and the violence, but just as before with the Irish, Japanese, and other races, the hispanics form gangs in order to protect themselves from injustice. The gang violence is created by our own haste from attacking the immigrants who only wish to earn a living. The rise of gangs occurred during prosecution. The Italian mob grew when the Italians could only turn to each other for assistance. Movies depicted this harsh past in our nation's history. Think Godfather or Gangs of New York.
I felt the need to write this post as a warning. Let us not copy the attacks on immigration as done in a city in Pennsylvania. Instead of decreasing the violence, crime, we may be increasing it, causing a streak of terror which gives birth to the gangs and mobs. To protect the cities we must accept that immigrants have every right to live in the United States. They only increase the trade ratio allowing for increase production and labor. If we need proof, then let us wait; the test subject has already been drawn in Hazleto, Pa. There we shall see if the streets do become safer, or if the rise of a new violent spree arises to maintain the safety of the illegal immigrants.
To judge whether a workman is fit to be employed, may surely be trusted to the
discretion of the employers whose interest it so much concerns. The affected
anxiety of the law-giver lest they should employ and improper person, is
evidently as impertinent as it is oppressive.- Wealth of Nations Adam Smith
How Johnny Depp saves a movie: or a review on Pirates of the Carribean
If you are thinking that you may not want to read this post just know there will be no spoilers to the movie only a short review.
If I had to rate the movie from one to ten, one being the worst and ten the best, I would rate the movie six. The movie is fun, full of exciting fight scenes, its music easily hooks you into the mood of the movie, but the movie's plot was awful. By the end, you are left asking certain questions and can easily find parts of the movie that do not make sense for what person would ever do such things. Of course, it is just a mo
vie, but even in movies we expect some realistic sense.
What made me actually enjoy the movie is Johnny Depp's character Captain Jack Sparrow. Once again Johnny Depp captures the audience by his performance. I could care less about Orlando Bloom or Keira Knightley's characters. Not that the actors are terrible (okay maybe Bloom), but the movie really did not need them. It is Depp who makes you laugh, enjoy the fight scenes, and Depp who saves the movie from going to Davey Jones' locker. Without Depp the movie would definitely not carry such a swagger, but include Depp and exclude his fellow main characters and you shall still find a movie that is commentable.
I give the movie a six mostly on Depps's performance. I do care for what happens to Captain Jack Sparrow and would most likely watch a movie just on Depp portraying his drunk pirate on improv. Johnny Depp, I enjoyed your perfomance, but as for the rest of the movie... well we shall just leave it at that.
If I had to rate the movie from one to ten, one being the worst and ten the best, I would rate the movie six. The movie is fun, full of exciting fight scenes, its music easily hooks you into the mood of the movie, but the movie's plot was awful. By the end, you are left asking certain questions and can easily find parts of the movie that do not make sense for what person would ever do such things. Of course, it is just a mo
vie, but even in movies we expect some realistic sense.What made me actually enjoy the movie is Johnny Depp's character Captain Jack Sparrow. Once again Johnny Depp captures the audience by his performance. I could care less about Orlando Bloom or Keira Knightley's characters. Not that the actors are terrible (okay maybe Bloom), but the movie really did not need them. It is Depp who makes you laugh, enjoy the fight scenes, and Depp who saves the movie from going to Davey Jones' locker. Without Depp the movie would definitely not carry such a swagger, but include Depp and exclude his fellow main characters and you shall still find a movie that is commentable.
I give the movie a six mostly on Depps's performance. I do care for what happens to Captain Jack Sparrow and would most likely watch a movie just on Depp portraying his drunk pirate on improv. Johnny Depp, I enjoyed your perfomance, but as for the rest of the movie... well we shall just leave it at that.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Internet Romance
So I finally land at the internet romance. It is not an exciting topic, not even sure why I feel obligated to post it, but who am I to decide what society needs or does not need? For this reason I post it.
Throughout the ages, the question that poets, philosophers, and ordinary everyday people have found themselves asking is what is love. I am not going to discuss what love is as that may be the first stone cast in a long debate. Rather I will say that most, not everyone, is searching for love. They search in hopes of having that special feeling inside, of having someone to lean on, or to live out their dreams of a family in a white pickett fence. Why then, are we forced to see so many people in search of love on the internet. The internet that allows its users a vast amount of power. Off of the internet the nerd can become the jock, and the macho man can be sensitive. We know that competition causes men/women to be a different type of person for the one they show interest in, so what makes us think that it is not different on the internet where it is difficult to catch anyone on their lies.
Ok so most people turn to the internet on a notion of desperation. They feel they have no luck with love in the real world and hope out of the large amount of the people on the internet searching for love they will find their one true love. I will not say it is impossible, but I will say it is improbable. The suitors are given an incentive to cheat. The member profiles tell them all the likes dislikes and any other information that the user had placed. This information was meant to filter out any bad apples, but it is easily used for the opposite purpose. Now instead of finding soul mates we find we just made it easier to be used.
Ok so I am being a little harsh its not that bad. The competitive market may weed out the bad apples but examing the numbers there are surely going to be a few bad apples. The internet increases the amount that fit your preferences. In order to succeed online is to have a rules built or a strict set of preferences that disables most suitors from fitting in. This would decrease the number of suitors but may also discourage possible good apples.
Internet dating is probably more difficult than meeting the love of your life in real life, but still many try. Instead of dating websites they begin to chat in chat rooms. Looking for email buddies or even just friends, but just like any initial meeting with anyone feelings easily grow. Most people are addicted to that first feeling when you meet someone that you connect with so well, but online you miss out on something important. You miss out on the chemistry, the mixture of pheromones, and the importance of body language.
The highlight of internet dating? Learning someone's personality. Finding that personality that fits you perfectly. Anyone will tell you that personality is important in a relationship, but the differences between the real world and the internet relies on time. On the internet, when chatting you are giving a window or an amount of time to respond. This time gives you a chance to think through each thought allowing the quietest person in the real world to be the loudest in the internet. With this thought we find we can include anonymous bloggers. Their voice is heard but their faces, body language remain unseen. The blogger's personality is all that exists and yet the blogger's readers begin to build a sort of admiration. This admiration causes them to ask out the anonymous blogger; all from just their personality. Do the readers with crushes not have their own preferences or do their preferences only depict a type of personality. What happens when they should meet in person? Would that not change everything or would that only strengthen the relationship? Perhaps their is no chemistry and in fact it was only a friendship in the making.
I would think that internet romance is doomed from the beginning. Again it is not impossible since the amount of people on the net is substantial, so someone has to make it. But they must be a small percentage. Of course in my speaking of internet romance I have left out some important points. The points were left out because I only wanted to speak about an Internet Romance, yet what if they found one another on the internet and moved to speaking on the phone? This would then not be an internet relationship but one over the phone. A relationship over the phone is a long distance relationship, and these have a greater percentage of success than internet relationships. But we shall leave that for another post perhaps. Most likely not because I am tired of writing on relationships. In any case, I wish anyone good luck on their hunt for love. I apologize for my negative words towards online romance and wish to leave it on a good note; a soft poem's first stanza I had read once by the author of a romantic epic:
Throughout the ages, the question that poets, philosophers, and ordinary everyday people have found themselves asking is what is love. I am not going to discuss what love is as that may be the first stone cast in a long debate. Rather I will say that most, not everyone, is searching for love. They search in hopes of having that special feeling inside, of having someone to lean on, or to live out their dreams of a family in a white pickett fence. Why then, are we forced to see so many people in search of love on the internet. The internet that allows its users a vast amount of power. Off of the internet the nerd can become the jock, and the macho man can be sensitive. We know that competition causes men/women to be a different type of person for the one they show interest in, so what makes us think that it is not different on the internet where it is difficult to catch anyone on their lies.
Ok so most people turn to the internet on a notion of desperation. They feel they have no luck with love in the real world and hope out of the large amount of the people on the internet searching for love they will find their one true love. I will not say it is impossible, but I will say it is improbable. The suitors are given an incentive to cheat. The member profiles tell them all the likes dislikes and any other information that the user had placed. This information was meant to filter out any bad apples, but it is easily used for the opposite purpose. Now instead of finding soul mates we find we just made it easier to be used.
Ok so I am being a little harsh its not that bad. The competitive market may weed out the bad apples but examing the numbers there are surely going to be a few bad apples. The internet increases the amount that fit your preferences. In order to succeed online is to have a rules built or a strict set of preferences that disables most suitors from fitting in. This would decrease the number of suitors but may also discourage possible good apples.
Internet dating is probably more difficult than meeting the love of your life in real life, but still many try. Instead of dating websites they begin to chat in chat rooms. Looking for email buddies or even just friends, but just like any initial meeting with anyone feelings easily grow. Most people are addicted to that first feeling when you meet someone that you connect with so well, but online you miss out on something important. You miss out on the chemistry, the mixture of pheromones, and the importance of body language.
The highlight of internet dating? Learning someone's personality. Finding that personality that fits you perfectly. Anyone will tell you that personality is important in a relationship, but the differences between the real world and the internet relies on time. On the internet, when chatting you are giving a window or an amount of time to respond. This time gives you a chance to think through each thought allowing the quietest person in the real world to be the loudest in the internet. With this thought we find we can include anonymous bloggers. Their voice is heard but their faces, body language remain unseen. The blogger's personality is all that exists and yet the blogger's readers begin to build a sort of admiration. This admiration causes them to ask out the anonymous blogger; all from just their personality. Do the readers with crushes not have their own preferences or do their preferences only depict a type of personality. What happens when they should meet in person? Would that not change everything or would that only strengthen the relationship? Perhaps their is no chemistry and in fact it was only a friendship in the making.
I would think that internet romance is doomed from the beginning. Again it is not impossible since the amount of people on the net is substantial, so someone has to make it. But they must be a small percentage. Of course in my speaking of internet romance I have left out some important points. The points were left out because I only wanted to speak about an Internet Romance, yet what if they found one another on the internet and moved to speaking on the phone? This would then not be an internet relationship but one over the phone. A relationship over the phone is a long distance relationship, and these have a greater percentage of success than internet relationships. But we shall leave that for another post perhaps. Most likely not because I am tired of writing on relationships. In any case, I wish anyone good luck on their hunt for love. I apologize for my negative words towards online romance and wish to leave it on a good note; a soft poem's first stanza I had read once by the author of a romantic epic:
She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes:
Thus mellow'd to that tender light
Which heaven to gaudy day denies.
Immigration topics rise again...
I was planning on writing another post upon relationships, but I thought a short break wouldn't hurt. I found a post with an interesting topic, immigration. Professor Russel Roberts from George Mason University blogs at Cafe Hayek.com on his recent post he has explained two sides of the immigration issue. He has asked for feedback upon the two views. Check it out here...
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
The Competition for Love
So we return to the posts on love and relationships only to postpone the post on online dating which would include the topic of bloggers who want to date an anonymous blogger. It must be postponed because we have not had the chance to discuss the competition in relationships. We all face it perhaps some without knowledge but the competition is always on. This competition is the reason why men take women to the opera, workout to build a rock hard body, or study hard to achieve a large accumulation of wealth.
Relationships are full of competition since there are no barriers of entry for anyone from entering the market of relationships. The only restrictions are the preferences that are set by the individual that is wanted. These preferences, as defined in a few posts before, depict the market of the indivual's demand. These preferences limit the amount of competitors in the market as everyone does not fit the preferences, but even the one who meets the lowest credentials has a chance and is counted towards the number of competitors.
What is so important about these competitors? The more the competitors the higher the cost for the individual. In an open market, when there are many buyers for one good the price is naturally higher, but that does not necessarily mean the good would be sold at the price. It still may be higher or lower that it is sold at. Individuals that are wanted for a relationship are the same way. The more the suitors, the more each suitor must do. One may flaunt money, the other shows how many pushups he can do, but in the end, it is depending on the individuals preferences that decide who they would choose.
Competition makes people do things they would never neccessarily do. The country boys would learn to live in the city for the right girl, and the princess may give up all her wealth to be with a pauper. These are just two extremes, but they are not impossible feats. Often do we hear love stories of one giving up so many things for another, but as the saying goes, "You can take the boy from the country, but you can not take the country from the boy." In other words, for a period the suitors will do all that is wanted or expected. Bring flowers, tell jokes, open car doors. The idea is to be noticed over all the rest causing the competition to dwindle, but once you are chosen, once the decision has been made and life together is marvelous... the suitors stop working out, bringing flowers, and even taking their wives to the theatre. The movie Forget Paris said it best, "He was courting. Men do anything when they are courting." The truth is we all do things when we are courting. The ladies pretend to enjoy all that the men do. Some women have the silicon implants, others have the pads that insert into the bra or pants to make it appear they have buns of steel or a large cleavage. Men try to act tough or sensitive depending on the girl they have their eye on and even put down their competitors in hopes of decreasing their competition.
Competition in the relationship market helps maintain a social order. There are those who you would think would always be single and yet, it appears even they have a soulmate. The competition gives everyone a chance even those online who believe that they have met their soulmate. Understanding the competitiveness of the market enables us to know when to ask for more or when enough is enough. It is a gift to help find our loves, and best of all, it allows you to choose the best one that suits you.
Relationships are full of competition since there are no barriers of entry for anyone from entering the market of relationships. The only restrictions are the preferences that are set by the individual that is wanted. These preferences, as defined in a few posts before, depict the market of the indivual's demand. These preferences limit the amount of competitors in the market as everyone does not fit the preferences, but even the one who meets the lowest credentials has a chance and is counted towards the number of competitors.
What is so important about these competitors? The more the competitors the higher the cost for the individual. In an open market, when there are many buyers for one good the price is naturally higher, but that does not necessarily mean the good would be sold at the price. It still may be higher or lower that it is sold at. Individuals that are wanted for a relationship are the same way. The more the suitors, the more each suitor must do. One may flaunt money, the other shows how many pushups he can do, but in the end, it is depending on the individuals preferences that decide who they would choose.
Competition makes people do things they would never neccessarily do. The country boys would learn to live in the city for the right girl, and the princess may give up all her wealth to be with a pauper. These are just two extremes, but they are not impossible feats. Often do we hear love stories of one giving up so many things for another, but as the saying goes, "You can take the boy from the country, but you can not take the country from the boy." In other words, for a period the suitors will do all that is wanted or expected. Bring flowers, tell jokes, open car doors. The idea is to be noticed over all the rest causing the competition to dwindle, but once you are chosen, once the decision has been made and life together is marvelous... the suitors stop working out, bringing flowers, and even taking their wives to the theatre. The movie Forget Paris said it best, "He was courting. Men do anything when they are courting." The truth is we all do things when we are courting. The ladies pretend to enjoy all that the men do. Some women have the silicon implants, others have the pads that insert into the bra or pants to make it appear they have buns of steel or a large cleavage. Men try to act tough or sensitive depending on the girl they have their eye on and even put down their competitors in hopes of decreasing their competition.
Competition in the relationship market helps maintain a social order. There are those who you would think would always be single and yet, it appears even they have a soulmate. The competition gives everyone a chance even those online who believe that they have met their soulmate. Understanding the competitiveness of the market enables us to know when to ask for more or when enough is enough. It is a gift to help find our loves, and best of all, it allows you to choose the best one that suits you.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Fourth of July; Fireworks
Yes, today is not the Fourth of July. I was unable to receive access in order to write this post. I have postponed the relationship posts to include a few others.
I have been to many cities for the Fourth of July and have enjoyed them all, but I had always thought that the best display of fireworks was in the Nation's Capitol, Washington D.C. I am sure no one cares about where I believe the best fireworks display is, but that is not my point of this post. I had enjoyed the fireworks in D.C. more than other cities because it only compared public firework displays with other public displays. I don't think it was the fireworks display at all that I truly enjoyed, but the mass amount of people from around the country united to watch the fireworks display that shines with the nation's monuments in the background. Every city displays the fireworks differently but in D.C. it is this backdrop that gives it the edge over the other cities public firework displays.
Well, this year I saw the best fireworks display I have ever seen. It was not in any city, nor was it publicly displayed. These were private fireworks. In Virginia, certain fireworks are prohibited, but this year I ventured towards the center of the United States to watch an amazing feet, with the fireworks blooming over my head ashes drifting through the night sky.
Today's post is only to explain the difference between the public display and the private. The private display came from different angles, different locations. While one team reloaded, a different household would fire their fireworks into the night air. The blasts could almost be called deafening but rather left a small ringing in the ears, and the sulphur clouds filled the air. It was a show, from afar with the clouds hanging still and the fireworks continuously being fired, the display appeared to be a battle scene. A remake of the classic battle as the clouds began to drift and you could see the American Flag still waving on the neighbor's property.
Yes, I think we can conclude that the private show is definitely better than any public display even with a magnificent backdrop. The public display usually begins at 9 p.m and ends twenty minutes later. The grand finale is set up like clockwork while as in the private display there is no time limit. The show begins at dusk with a light spray of fountains and the few shots of bottle rockets or little fireworks that look like dynamite that emit their sonic booms. (yes, I know the names, but I am not here to advertise) The private display continues even after you have grown tired and laid in bed. The blasts heard from distances and you can only wo
nder who is out there still firing off their displays. The best, the fireworks continue for days afterwards as the fireworks are now sold at 1/2 off. The celebration is just a reoccurring battle. Forget the Christmas Decorations on the Fourth of July, the neighbors compete to who can produce the greatest show, and I can only congratulate everyone who fires fireworks as their display will always in my book top any publicly displayed fireworks show. Of course, I congratulate both the professionally done private displays and those that just by the prepackaged fireworks that enter a tube. Thank you for a wonderful Fourth of July. The fireworks were outstanding.
I have been to many cities for the Fourth of July and have enjoyed them all, but I had always thought that the best display of fireworks was in the Nation's Capitol, Washington D.C. I am sure no one cares about where I believe the best fireworks display is, but that is not my point of this post. I had enjoyed the fireworks in D.C. more than other cities because it only compared public firework displays with other public displays. I don't think it was the fireworks display at all that I truly enjoyed, but the mass amount of people from around the country united to watch the fireworks display that shines with the nation's monuments in the background. Every city displays the fireworks differently but in D.C. it is this backdrop that gives it the edge over the other cities public firework displays.
Well, this year I saw the best fireworks display I have ever seen. It was not in any city, nor was it publicly displayed. These were private fireworks. In Virginia, certain fireworks are prohibited, but this year I ventured towards the center of the United States to watch an amazing feet, with the fireworks blooming over my head ashes drifting through the night sky.
Today's post is only to explain the difference between the public display and the private. The private display came from different angles, different locations. While one team reloaded, a different household would fire their fireworks into the night air. The blasts could almost be called deafening but rather left a small ringing in the ears, and the sulphur clouds filled the air. It was a show, from afar with the clouds hanging still and the fireworks continuously being fired, the display appeared to be a battle scene. A remake of the classic battle as the clouds began to drift and you could see the American Flag still waving on the neighbor's property.
Yes, I think we can conclude that the private show is definitely better than any public display even with a magnificent backdrop. The public display usually begins at 9 p.m and ends twenty minutes later. The grand finale is set up like clockwork while as in the private display there is no time limit. The show begins at dusk with a light spray of fountains and the few shots of bottle rockets or little fireworks that look like dynamite that emit their sonic booms. (yes, I know the names, but I am not here to advertise) The private display continues even after you have grown tired and laid in bed. The blasts heard from distances and you can only wo
nder who is out there still firing off their displays. The best, the fireworks continue for days afterwards as the fireworks are now sold at 1/2 off. The celebration is just a reoccurring battle. Forget the Christmas Decorations on the Fourth of July, the neighbors compete to who can produce the greatest show, and I can only congratulate everyone who fires fireworks as their display will always in my book top any publicly displayed fireworks show. Of course, I congratulate both the professionally done private displays and those that just by the prepackaged fireworks that enter a tube. Thank you for a wonderful Fourth of July. The fireworks were outstanding.
Explanations of Absence
To the readers,
Not as if it was not noticed, but I did not have access to the internet through my travels over the Fourth of July celebration. If I had a someone who blogged with me, perhaps the blog would continue without fault, but as I write this blog alone, the readers are forced to wait for my posts. The readers of this blog really must have some patience, because I am not the typical blogger who tries to post everyday. I do not think of blogging as my profession; rather it is more of an obligation. I post in the small truths that I learn and wish to share. Perhaps its material that I have found and think it needs explaining or just a lesson I wish to give. In any case, I do not blog everyday. I try, but sometimes a block keeps me from writing about anything. For this very reason did I write this post. It is not to waste time but to explain minor details of why it seems some posts take longer than others.
I know that no explanation is truly needed, but it is only fair to any who have grown impatient of why I post infrequently. In any case my explanation has been said, and I will try to maintain a more steady input of posts. My travels for the most part have ended... now it is only in finding the material in which to post.
Not as if it was not noticed, but I did not have access to the internet through my travels over the Fourth of July celebration. If I had a someone who blogged with me, perhaps the blog would continue without fault, but as I write this blog alone, the readers are forced to wait for my posts. The readers of this blog really must have some patience, because I am not the typical blogger who tries to post everyday. I do not think of blogging as my profession; rather it is more of an obligation. I post in the small truths that I learn and wish to share. Perhaps its material that I have found and think it needs explaining or just a lesson I wish to give. In any case, I do not blog everyday. I try, but sometimes a block keeps me from writing about anything. For this very reason did I write this post. It is not to waste time but to explain minor details of why it seems some posts take longer than others.
I know that no explanation is truly needed, but it is only fair to any who have grown impatient of why I post infrequently. In any case my explanation has been said, and I will try to maintain a more steady input of posts. My travels for the most part have ended... now it is only in finding the material in which to post.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Chasing the dreams...
In my last post, I had used a simple graph to show that you can only be in love with one person which most likely is not one of the people we constantly dream about, but that does not mean that you can never chase after your dreams. Our dreams are easily attainable since the demand changes according to each of our preference but the supply remains the same.
What would increase or decrease supply? The death or coming of age of individuals who fit in the supply side. What would increase/decrease our demand? As stated before, the demand is simply our preferences. Depending on our needs our demand changes. For instance, depending on what type of relationship you are looking for your preferences will change. There m
aybe someone you would never marry in a hundred thousand years, but that same person you may date short term just to have someone and rid yourself of a lonely feeling. The preferences for a short term relationship are more lax then a long term. The long term has more traits besides good looks, outgoing personality, and lots of money. While on short term relationships, we tend to move towards those superficial traits enveloping ourselves with someone who gives us small satisfaction for the brief amount of time. The equilibrium point of self worth is at a different amount from short term to long term because the supply stays the same and the demand shifted to the right or the left as shown on the graph on the right which has a surprise link to its initial webpage.
So now we have decided, we can not have two loves, but we can have many relationships depending on our preferences at the time. Next, who knows... perhaps anonymous bloggers and the bloggers who love them...
What would increase or decrease supply? The death or coming of age of individuals who fit in the supply side. What would increase/decrease our demand? As stated before, the demand is simply our preferences. Depending on our needs our demand changes. For instance, depending on what type of relationship you are looking for your preferences will change. There m
aybe someone you would never marry in a hundred thousand years, but that same person you may date short term just to have someone and rid yourself of a lonely feeling. The preferences for a short term relationship are more lax then a long term. The long term has more traits besides good looks, outgoing personality, and lots of money. While on short term relationships, we tend to move towards those superficial traits enveloping ourselves with someone who gives us small satisfaction for the brief amount of time. The equilibrium point of self worth is at a different amount from short term to long term because the supply stays the same and the demand shifted to the right or the left as shown on the graph on the right which has a surprise link to its initial webpage.So now we have decided, we can not have two loves, but we can have many relationships depending on our preferences at the time. Next, who knows... perhaps anonymous bloggers and the bloggers who love them...
Not politics, but entering relationships
I have been saving this blog for a little while. It seems that one of my first blogs on the topic who to follow Heart or Mind is popular as it has more hits than most of my political blogs. I don't mind because I think that blog is important especially for today's youth who feel free spirited. There is nothing wrong with feeling free spirited, but I won't begin writing on that topic again. You can just read about it here.
This lets me introduce my new topic upon dating. There is plenty of political blogs, and although, I would love to continuously write about politics I feel that speaking about relationships is important as well.
This series of blogs should be interesting because it will let me understand if people truly like reading blogs about relationships or politics. My prediction, the relationship blogs will create more hits. Unfortunate for the politics, but at least I may attract some hopeless romantics to bring their passion towards politics and freedom.
The question asked, "Can you be in love with more than one person?" This odd question (odd because who would want to be in love with two people?) is actually a popular question, especially with teens. The truth is that you can not be in love with two people. My reasoning is simple economics although I can also argue many sides that can disprove this simple economical answer, but most readers do not know economics therefore we will just leave it as a simple answer.
In economics, there is always a supply and a demand. Let us begin with the demand. Every person they have their own demand curve. Everyone has the man/woman of their dreams perhaps it is Fabio, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Simpson, or Heidi Klum. In any case, there is only one of these dream person for any particular person therefore we are willing to pay a large amount to have them as a partner. The price is not neccessarily money but perhaps a cost on having to work out alot, make alot of money, or even have an outstanding attitude. Each is its own cost.
On the supply side, there is only a limited amount of the dream people. They are rare and wanted by many therefore are worth a lot. The supply of partners is made up of more than just the dreamers though. We have the average people and the people who you would not touch if they were the last person on Earth.
I know, I know, this is getting long winded, but here is where you find why there is only one love of your life. Just like in the market, we may have many relationships throughout our life, but each relationship is only to help us reach the equilibrium, where Supply meets Demand. When you are not at this equilibrium, the relationships have problems, perhaps they cost too much for what they are worth or too little for what they are worth. This causes a problem since you will take more than what you are worth or the amount that you are worth but not a lesser amount. If you are receiving a lesser amount you would naturally trade up to receive a higher amount. This is why some people appear to date so many people. They are only trying to reach their own self worth although without knowing it. At the same time, no one would pay more for something that initially costs less, therefore the relationship would end again only to find another relationship that would bring you closer to your self worth. From here we can defer that Supply is a line, not necessarily straight but still a line, as well as Demand. Since both are lines they can only intersect at one spot not two... This leads us to the conclusion that there is only one love of your life not two or three, although there are many people who wish they could.
The next blog, if I am lucky enough to have power in my next distination, will be about one of the arguements against this evening's conclusion. Can an average person ever get to go out with a dreamer???
This lets me introduce my new topic upon dating. There is plenty of political blogs, and although, I would love to continuously write about politics I feel that speaking about relationships is important as well.
This series of blogs should be interesting because it will let me understand if people truly like reading blogs about relationships or politics. My prediction, the relationship blogs will create more hits. Unfortunate for the politics, but at least I may attract some hopeless romantics to bring their passion towards politics and freedom.
The question asked, "Can you be in love with more than one person?" This odd question (odd because who would want to be in love with two people?) is actually a popular question, especially with teens. The truth is that you can not be in love with two people. My reasoning is simple economics although I can also argue many sides that can disprove this simple economical answer, but most readers do not know economics therefore we will just leave it as a simple answer.
In economics, there is always a supply and a demand. Let us begin with the demand. Every person they have their own demand curve. Everyone has the man/woman of their dreams perhaps it is Fabio, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Simpson, or Heidi Klum. In any case, there is only one of these dream person for any particular person therefore we are willing to pay a large amount to have them as a partner. The price is not neccessarily money but perhaps a cost on having to work out alot, make alot of money, or even have an outstanding attitude. Each is its own cost.
On the supply side, there is only a limited amount of the dream people. They are rare and wanted by many therefore are worth a lot. The supply of partners is made up of more than just the dreamers though. We have the average people and the people who you would not touch if they were the last person on Earth.
I know, I know, this is getting long winded, but here is where you find why there is only one love of your life. Just like in the market, we may have many relationships throughout our life, but each relationship is only to help us reach the equilibrium, where Supply meets Demand. When you are not at this equilibrium, the relationships have problems, perhaps they cost too much for what they are worth or too little for what they are worth. This causes a problem since you will take more than what you are worth or the amount that you are worth but not a lesser amount. If you are receiving a lesser amount you would naturally trade up to receive a higher amount. This is why some people appear to date so many people. They are only trying to reach their own self worth although without knowing it. At the same time, no one would pay more for something that initially costs less, therefore the relationship would end again only to find another relationship that would bring you closer to your self worth. From here we can defer that Supply is a line, not necessarily straight but still a line, as well as Demand. Since both are lines they can only intersect at one spot not two... This leads us to the conclusion that there is only one love of your life not two or three, although there are many people who wish they could.
The next blog, if I am lucky enough to have power in my next distination, will be about one of the arguements against this evening's conclusion. Can an average person ever get to go out with a dreamer???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
